In spite of the very large number of different parking systems currently in existence, such systems generally fall into one of three categories. Coin-operated parking meters each relating to a respective parking space are in use, requiring a motorist to pay for a limited amount of parking time, after which time the parking meter shows a suitable excess-time signal. A municipal parking official checks the parking meters manually and issues a report in respect of any vehicle which is parked alongside a parking meter showing such an excess-time signal.
A particular drawback with such a system is that, since the parking meter itself contains coins, it is subject to vandalism and, furthermore, such meters are usually prone to mechanical failure.
Consequently, pre-paid parking cards are often sold by the municipality for displaying in a vehicle parked in a valid parking space within the municipality. Such cards have a number of partially perforated apertures, selected ones of which can be completely perforated so as to display a date and time during which the motorist wishes to park his vehicle. Typically, each parking card provides a one hour parking so that, in the event that the motorist wishes to park for more than one hour, he must display a corresponding number of cards through the window of his vehicle.
In such a system, the municipal parking official must approach each vehicle in order to read the parking card or cards displayed therein so as to check (1) that they have indeed been completely perforated, and (2) if so, that the vehicle is validly parked. In this context, the vehicle will be validly parked if the start time perforated by the motorist is prior to the actual time of inspection by the parking official and the time which has elapsed since that time does not exceed a maximum permitted time.
Such parking cards overcome the tendency for vandalism associated with mechanical coin-operated parking meters but they still suffer from a number of drawbacks. Thus, whilst coin-operated parking meters can usually be seen from a distance, particularly if the excess-time flag is displayed, the perforations in the parking cards can only be inspected from very close range thus placing a greater burden on the municipal parking official. Furthermore, such parking cards invite a certain amount of fraud on the part of an unscrupulous motorist who might be tempted to perforate a start time somewhat later than the actual start time on the assumption that, statistically at least, no parking official will inspect his vehicle prior to the incorrect start time which he has entered.
It should be noted that various electronic systems also exist, such as, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,730,285 (John Lie) which discloses an individual parking meter which is, in effect, a debit card, for displaying parking time information and including a switch for starting and stopping the parking meter. Also included is a parking zone selector affecting the time consumption so as to be dependent on a preselected parking zone. A display shows the remaining time credit in respect of which the parking meter may be used as well as the allowed parking time remaining at any time in the current zone which also is displayed.
Such a system is obviously more flexible than an individual pre-printed parking card but is also significantly more expensive and must be discarded upon expiry.
Israel Patent Nos. 72802 and 76111 assigned to N.T.E. Parkulator likewise disclose electronic time metering devices comprising a time storage device for storing data corresponding to a pre-purchased time limit, a time measuring device and means for manually selecting a predetermined time interval. Means for decrementing an elapsed time period from the pre-purchased time are provided as well as a display means, which may be a bar-type display, for displaying the available time.
Finally, mention must be made of the vast number of parking management systems which usually include an entry barrier such that the time of entry of a vehicle there-through is measured and recorded either manually or automatically. Prior to the vehicle's leaving the parking lot, the exit time is likewise measured and the motorist is presented with a bill in respect of each hour or part thereof during which his vehicle was parked.
A major drawback of such systems from the point of view of the municipality is that they must be constantly and individually attended and therefore the system is labor intensive compared with parking meter or card systems. There is also a drawback from the motorist's point of view, which applies equally to the other parking systems described above, in that even if he only uses a fraction of the final hour he must still pay for the complete hour. Whilst this probably increases the revenue for the municipality it is hardly fair on the motorist and probably discourages him from vacating his parking place promptly particularly if, by doing so, he would obtain little value from his final hour's parking.
In municipal un-managed parking systems such as road-side parking spaces employing parking meters or parking cards, a predetermined parking time is purchased by the motorist which may or may not be further qualified by a maximum time limit associated with the parking space. Even when no such parking time limit is imposed by the municipality, the motorist must ensure that he pre-purchases sufficient parking time either by inserting sufficient coins into the parking meter or by displaying a sufficient number of parking cards, so that he is not inadvertently absent for a longer period than his pre-purchased parking time. Since it is obviously not always easy for a motorist to predict how long he is likely to require parking in advance, this requires either that he takes a risk in order to minimize his expenses or, alternatively, that he plays safe notwithstanding the additional cost that he thereby incurs. This drawback would, of course, be obviated if his pre-purchased parking time were partially redeemable in respect of any unused time. This is accomplished, to some extent, by debit card types of parking meter such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,730,285 discussed above, although the solution proposed therein is only partial seeing that the disclosed parking meter cannot be extended or renewed and reused.
Yet a further drawback associated with hitherto proposed parking systems relates to the manner in which a parking ticket is issued by the municipal parking official. On the one hand, it is known that motorists sometimes destroy their parking tickets without paying in the hope that the municipality will overlook the fact that a parking ticket was issued. On the other hand, it also sometimes occurs that vandals remove parking tickets so that the motorist does not even know that one was issued until he subsequently receives a reminder from the municipality. Such reminders, usually accompanied by late-payment fines, are normally received by the motorist several months after the alleged parking offence and usually the motorist has no option but to rely on the integrity of the municipality that the alleged parking offence did indeed occur.
It has been known that unscrupulous parking officials have fraudulently reported fictitious parking offenses to the municipality after destroying the original copy of the parking ticket. When the motorist subject of such fraud eventually receives a reminder from the municipality that his parking fine was not paid, the reminder is, in fact, his first indication that such a parking offence occurred in the first place. However, with the passage of time, it is very difficult for him to prove that he was not guilty of the alleged offence and, even if the required proof is available, this is usually at the expense of an appearance in Court, possibly accompanied by lawyers' fees, all of which would likely be more expensive for the motorist than simply paying the fine without argument.
These problems result from the fact that the parking ticket issued by the municipality, even when genuine, is located somewhere on the outside of the vehicle since access to within a locked vehicle is clearly impossible. The parking ticket is thus susceptible to loss, either wilful or otherwise, prior to the motorist returning to his vehicle. The possibility of such loss has sometimes been capitalized on by unscrupulous motorists or parking officials.
A further important drawback with all hitherto proposed parking systems is that they are managed by a particular municipality which is obviously concerned to maximize its own revenue. Specifically, pre-perforated parking cards of the type described above are issued by each individual municipality separately and are not transferable. This means that a motorist must equip himself with a variety of such parking cards in respect of each city in which he expects to park. This is only mildly inconvenient when he only parks his vehicle in a small number of locations, such as his home city and maybe his place of work but is highly inconvenient if he ventures out of his normal locality for any reason. For example, if he goes on business or vacation to a city for which he does not have a stock of parking cards, he must first locate a vendor from whom the parking cards may be purchased and this is a major burden.
Electronic parking cards having zone selection capability such as above-mentioned U.S. Pat. No. 4,730,285 appear to offer a solution to this problem. However, in practice, the solution is unacceptable for the simple reason that no municipality is prepared to accept a parking card issued by another municipality, if the pre-purchased parking credit is paid to that other municipality unless there exists genuine reciprocity between different municipalities. However, such reciprocity cannot in practice exist where different municipalities have different parking densities and tariffs. Obviously, a municipality having a high parking density will be loathe to accept parking cards issued by a different municipality having a much reduced parking density since the assumption of reciprocity is that equal numbers of motorists will park their vehicles across the border in municipal parking lots. This is clearly not true, particularly when large numbers of motorists commute to work in a high density parking municipality from a low parking density municipality.